Its about correct grammar and comprehension: would you include the moon and Mars in the map of earth today, even if in 500 years humans may conquer those parts? If not, why include Tasmania in the world map 5,500 years ago? Grammar was introduced in the OT.

The flood refers to the 'then known world' and the animals were domestic. It would be a debacle to include Tasmania and Mexico in the context 5,500 years ago, and this grammatical anamoly is not suffered in the perfect and exacting texts. This was a period in humanity when Babylon never knew the existence of Egypt, and people hardly ventured outside their villages throughout their lives: there was not only no inter-country news services, but all no roads at this time, no pyramids, no chariots. It requires correct application of texts and period setting.

The OT is 100% correct in its narratives, speaking with the right restrospective and applicable descriptions, from the POV of that spacetime setting, in the language of the peoples, and shows an understanding of the nature of mankind. The texts clearly says, in its preamble, this story referred to NOAH AND HIS HOUSEHOLD [Noah's possessions]; and that 'THE ANIMALS CAME TO NOAH' - meaning those which knew Noah as their carer, when the flood became evident. Here, the critical pointers of tigers, wasps and crocodiles become the operative missing factors from the text, and the imperitive and encumbent requirements for not going upon the wrong conclusions.

It is also clear that the boat is said to be rested when the flood ended, in the close vicinity of the area (Mt Ararat), next door to Mesopotamia - evidencing this was a huge, but regional flood, and the reason we find independent reports in ancient writings confirming this event - but not in writings of Tasmania and Mexico.

Thus, all references to animals are domestic; all references to tops of mountains and the whole earth covered with water - apply only to the substantial parts of the region, and are valid expressionisms in describing a region-wide flood. Significantly, all the other historical factors in this report are scientifically authentic and verifiable, including the names, places and surrounding descriptions - dispensing with any notion this is not a historical accounting.

quote:The flood refers to the 'then known world' and the animals were domestic.

Genesis 7:1-4 is God speaking. God surely knew about the entire world when He said "Seven days from now I will send rain on the earth for forty days and forty nights, and I will wipe from the face of the earth every living creature I have made". So the then known world was the entire world in that passage, because God said so.

Correct. Here, 'every living creature' and 'the earth' is the subject term addressed to Noah, and refers to the then known world only. It does not and can not include Tasmania, is the point.

quote:Though I don't see this as God speaking directly, it does beg the question of the inerrancy of the Bible if you are claiming it was a local flood. The Bible is quite clear that it was global.

The term 'global' and 'earth' is relative of its spacetime; Tasmania did not exist here. There is no alternative of this conclusion and depiction.

quote:

Thus, all references to animals are domestic

Genesis 7:14 writes:They had with them every wild animal according to its kind, all livestock according to their kinds, every creature that moves along the ground according to its kind and every bird according to its kind, everything with wings.

Thus, all references to animals that are not domestic should be ignored? The livestock would be considered domestic, the "wild animals" are wild animals, why do you say they are domestic?

Yes, at this time [prior to the OT], wild pigs, hogs, dogs, camels, horses were domestic and part of Noah's possessions, qualified as unclean [for consumtion], and clean [kosher or clean for consumtion, namely cattle]; the term clean is later identified when the OT was given.

quote:

Here, the critical pointers of tigers, wasps and crocodiles become the operative missing factors from the text, and the imperitive and encumbent requirements for not going upon the wrong conclusions.

Lets not forget that it was God who said "I will wipe from the face of the earth every living creature I have made.". Your conclusions differ from the words God spoke, how do you explain this?

They don't differ. The term 'earth' and all creatures are subject to its spacetime, with no other reading possible.

quote:

Genesis 9:15,16 writes:Never again will the waters become a flood to destroy all life. 16 Whenever the rainbow appears in the clouds, I will see it and remember the everlasting covenant between God and all living creatures of every kind on the earth.

If the flood was local, why would God make a covenant to never again destroy all living creatures?

This applies to all living creatures in any period's known world. This is vindicated, despite many natural disasters which have occured since then.

quote:Why have the rainbow as a reminder that God will never again flood the Earth if in fact he never did flood the Earth but only a local region, and continues to flood local regions in defiance of his own covenant.

The rainbow is a most appropriate symbol here, and represents a mark observable by all sectors of humanity in all spacetimes and regions. Again, the selection of such a mark makes for a premise of great credibility here, which anticipates the future - as with your post.

quote:Significantly, all the other historical factors in this report are scientifically authentic and verifiable, including the names, places and surrounding descriptions - dispensing with any notion this is not a historical accounting.

So if names, places, and surrounding descriptions are accurate the authenticity of the book is no longer in question (by your definition). So by the same token the Koran, Romeo and Juliet, and Tom Clancies Hunt for Red October are all historical documents? Can't we just dispense with most of the "fiction" category in the bookstore then?

The differential is, unlike any other document [to my knowledge], and also irrespectively, Genesis is speaking 'retrospectively', namely of names and historical factors which are over 2000 years from its own contemporary spacetime. That the details of such narratives are acknowledged as authentic by archeologists, is a remarkable feat. The names in Noah's generation are not Hebrew [this peoples never existed then], and are not seen outside of Noah's spacetime; countries and nations which did not yet exist are not mentioned here; those that are mentioned are historically authentic and correct. IMHO, this is perhaps one the strongest indicators of the text's credibility, and which I have not encountered any place else.

I see the 'SEPARATION' factor as pivotal, and relevent for all the elements, and an irreplacable process for the anticipation and catering of life. That this factor is not addressed in ToE is an anomoly; ToE also does not factor the 'seed' application, and fails to differentiate humans as a species of its own by virtue of the most unique trait of all life forms, namely 'speech'. With the latter, Genesis appears to be saying that speech is a factor which requires special attention - the reason it is included in the creation chapter, along with the chronological introduction of all life forms; namely it should not be regarded as just another common trait, but one which is an eposhial one. Of note, humans are thus declared as the life form which is to have dominion of all other life forms and of all the worlds - as a consequence of speech.

The details of the above, and its explanatory process, is what we call 'science', whereas they are given as constants and statutes in Genesis.

quote:No, not really. I take great pleasure in watching you butcher the bible while attempting to defend it.

I gave contextual back-up to verses which you never factored in. Also, I explained that the names and descriptions in the Noah story are all authentic of its period. So we have here, a genuine report of a spacetime, and a flood which is also reported by other nations. It seems any butchering is a disregard how another nation can report a story if they were destroyed by a world wide flood - except if the flood was a local one. Yes/no?

quote:I have factored in the context. What you have not factored in is the words that God spoke. The question is: When the bible has written God says, is that an accurate statement?

If God did not say "all the world" and "everything that draws breath" then there really is no issue with your version of the story. So how about you provide your interpretation on what the bible means when it says God says. Is it accurate or just makes for a good story?

Your factoring is in error. 'Everything w breath' relates to 'all the *THEN* world'. There is no other reading when the text is given reasonable semblance: it relates to Noah's pov, and this must be allocated to the speak to him. There is no question the speaker knows the terrain in question - which is seen authentic as its affirmation. You *WANT* to read it wrongly, and the text exposes a lack of comprehension and inadequate attending to regard of the context.

quote:

It seems any butchering is a disregard how another nation can report a story if they were destroyed by a world wide flood - except if the flood was a local one. Yes/no?

True, if you do not disregard the reports of other nations its quite obvious it was a local flood and the bible is wrong that God spoke of a global flood and killing of all animals. So which is it?

1- Local flood and the bible is wrong (the authors didn't know what God said.)2- Global flood and the bible is wrong (the authors didn't know that it was a local flood.)

Be precise here.

The text cannot be wrong: Tasmania did not exist - relatively, subjectively and actually. Same as it did not exist a 1000 years ago. The reports of a local flood by others affirms the text - as does all the other factors in the text - again negating any possibility the speak is not aware of the terrains or its spacetime.

quote: Do we live on the same planet? The only thing I don't understand is your line of thinking because you are a pick and choose creationist.

The planet has a timeplace relativity, and correct speech and grammar says this must be factored in. I am not picking and choosing when any relativity is factored in - instead, I am not picking and choosing what to disregard. The contextual setting is 5,500 years ago: even ancient egypt or pyramids cannot be considered here. The text would be in error only if Tasmania was disregarded *TODAY*; this is not the case.

Further, one must look at the other items in the text: does it display an astonishing contemporary evidence of knowing its correct spacetime terrain?

quote:Its clear to me now that you are opting for a version of option 1. Either the writers of the Bible did not correctly chronicle the words God spoke, or God Himself was unaware of the rest of the planet.

Tasmania did not exist - relatively, subjectively and actually.

Why do you keep bringing up Tasmania? I don't even understand the relevance.

The speaker is God, the subject is Noah; the setting is 5,500 years ago. I use Tasmania to indicate this place did not yet exist in the then known world; Tasmania is less than 300 years old. I posited the authenticity of the textual descriptions as an evidence the speaker knows correctly all the factors of what the then known world - as per the subject's [Noah] and its spacetime. It is a higher insight of the world, when one describes it with catering to the subject spoken to.

Today, if we refer to the 'now' known world - we cannot be referring to an underground hemisphere which is outside our radar; and if an advanced alien knows about this hemisphere - and also that alien knows this it is outside our radar - he must address us in our terms. Subsequently, if the whole known world - according to us [the subject] was affected, it will be a correct statement by the aliens. This will be further affirmed that the alien fully understands all the stats and specs relating to the known world from our pov.

The text have to be treated seriously - exactly how you would treat a complex physics or maths document. It is obviously multi-dimensional for all generations. If in 500 years we discover a new realm of countries on earth - it will not render the texts incorrect, or that the speaker was not aware: exactly the reverse applies. The observer/reader of the texts today, should thus also factor the relativity of the speaker and the subject: here we see all fits into place, and it becomes a confirmation of the right reading. That 'HE SPEAKETH IN THE LANGUAGE OF THE PEOPLES' - applies, even in its grammatical aspect. One does not speak to a child to include MC2, but in accordance of the child's pov.

quote:

And those reports show that the writers of the Bible did not correctly record what God said, or God Himself was unaware of the rest of the planet. This is my point, nothing about Tasmania anywhere in there.

Both those views are wrong: this awareness factor is not relative to today's description of the world [sic], but that of Noah's spacetime. The latter spacetime is 100% vindicated as correct.

quote:

Except the speaker (God) appears to be unaware of the rest of the planet

Such a conclusion is only possible if a description of the world was made *TODAY*. It means, to deliberate the obvious, if you described the world 500 years ago, and did not include Tasmania - and have all your descriptions correct as at 500 years ago: you would NOT be in error. The Genesis text is perfect - from the speaker to subject pov - as seen today.

When one examines their reading of this flood, they have to conclude there is no motive in describing a flood incorrectly, when all their descriptions outside the extent of the flood, is correct. The text is not disregarding other places - they did not exist.

We see from the above, any disputation does not overturn the prima facie aspect of the flood: it did occur, evidenced by cross-nation reporting, and the correct identification of all descriptions. The aspect of the whole world and all creatures, becomes the secondary factor only - and when this is examined correctly - it too becomes vindicated; the secondary factor does not overturn the prima facie in any way. Here, any inuendo of myth becomes non-credible and short sighted - or worse.

I find the obvious premise of a text describing a spacetime 5,500 years ago - an astonishing factor never seen elsewhere for such a spacetime and with such advanced descriptions [in fact nothing of such a calibre exists], becoming a negative instead of a positive allocation. Its not like anyone can display a better historical portrait elsewhere - no historical descriptions exist of this spacetime.

Mount Arafat is introduced here for the first time, in correct allocation and location of the other stats in the narrative; the cultures, names and characters of this primal humanity is correct; the olive and vine are correct descriptions of diet; the dates match the OT calendar correctly; the generations before and after Noah are authentic - culminating in the origins of the ancient egyptians and of Abraham's ancesters [Ham and Shem, Noah's sons, respectively] are correct.

IOW, we have a historical description which is astonishly faultless here, and not seen elsewhere. Not even a less than faultless example is seen elsewhere. The flood report is thus not a myth in any POV, and any allocation of it as such is a greater myth.

quote: Although I am utterly unable to follow the gist of your argument, I would like to point out that this particular statement is inaccurate. The Tasman Basin contains glacial sedimentary and alluvial deposits (indicating it was above the water at least part of the time) dating from the Late Carboniferous - call it around 310 million years old. In other words, a bit over the 300 years you indicate.

It does appear the gist is not followed, despite the use of that word. If the glacial sedimentary factors were relevent to Noah, then indeed the 5,500 year futuristic application of Tasmania becomes onerous.

Obviously, I referred to the name of a state called Tasmania did not exist, and this is correct. Captain Cook too did not exist!

quote: I don't really care if Noah believed the whole world was his back porch - God should have known better.

Correct, Gd did know better. This is only evidential by knowing what is knowable by Noah, and affirmed by all the surrounding stats and specs in this reporting. The difficiency would be only if Noah and the spacetime was disregarded, eg: if Tasmania or any other state which was known or settled yet by Noah and not mentioned, or that if wild animals such as lions and tigers, were in the text. This is not the case.

If Mr. Einstein converses with a 2 year old child, and does not mention MC2 - it is a commendation of Einstein - not a difficiency he never knew about MC2.

quote:If the subject is about E=MC2 and Mr. Einstein does not mention E=MC2 then anyone listening in may interpret Mr. Eistein as an idiot or a liar.

I don't think so. They will see him discussing MC2 on TV with other Professors, and not conclude as you. That is why I pointed you to numerous wondrous stats in the Noah story which affirms there are no lies or errors here: you have clung to semantics and ignored everything else.

quote: Its hard to say really, it all depends whether or not the information he told to child was correct or not. Was the information that God gave to Noah correct? No. Was the information impossible to convey to Noah about the reality of the situation? No.

Nothing was incorrect, and no other evidential incorrect statements are contained therein. I dare say this debate is becoming like a theological debate of beliefs: here, all logic is useless. We are stretching the fabric of a secondary issue of the flood, and ignoring 100s of other verifying stats.

quote:Noah was not a two year old, and the idea of the world being larger than what Noah had explored is not a tough idea to teach unlike E=MC2. The idea that there are more animals than what was sitting in Noahs barn is also not a tough idea to teach.

Again, this is wrong. I point out to you, that even 400 years ago, the native Americans had no idea there was Europe. And 5,500 years ago, Babylon did not exist; 5,300 years ago, Babylon did not know of Egypt's emergence. Further, there is no reason to tell Noah of areas which had not yet existed, while ratifying the then known world. If you want to find an error in Genesis, then let it be where this can be seen as clear cut and no qualifications apply, not with a singular semantical reading which is grammatically so poor. Are any of the other stats in the Noah story wrong or false, aside from it applying to the then known world of Noah's period - how then can you account for anything being lies or wrong - what motive or benefit do you apply for such lies?

quote:Where do we place blame then? Was Noah not smart enough to learn simple concepts? Was God not patient enough to teach them? Was God correct in his methods if the concept of a global flood has been misunderstood by billions of people throughout history because of His unwillingness to explain? (This last is not really a question, its more like my whole point)

Its not a reasonable or proper pov. Noah cannot be called lacking in smartness if he did know that Tasmania and Canada did not yet exist, nor was Gd as the speaker. I gave you an anology with Einstein and a child, but that seems to have been lost in translation!

quote:it is a commendation of Einstein

Your analogy is pretty weak. The question I would first ask is could the teacher explain the subject in such a way that the student could understand? Is the subject too complex? Did a simplification (if that is the case) end up conveying the wrong information and lead to improper ideas about the subject?

Its not even a simplification: Noah's world did not include the same countries today. Tommorow, we may have totally different states - maybe even underground cities in the Pacific ocean - we need not account for this today in normal speech to evidence our smartness.

quote:**Do you plan to address the rest of my post? In particular:Vacate writes:So, can you describe the motive for God creating a local flood?

If its a time constraint, I understand. Its hard to judge if I have made a point in your eyes when its not addressed.

This is given in the text, and not requiring another pov. Is it related to the point of discussion? Noah is singled out in his region, and told to collect all his household possessions, and to build a sea vessel which dimensions are well alligned to the task. We find here also, this flood was reported by others in the region, affirming the report, but only as a regional flood.

I will add that the text says, Noah was found rightious 'IN HIS GENERATION'. This term generation is numerously employed in the OT, eg. Generation of Abraham, Ismael and Jacob - they apply to their own particular descending family tree only - not to the world, again indicative of a regional event. I am certain, but have not attempted it, but if all the genrations of Adam are checked, they will be found to be divergent from the generations listed of Noah. Both these events allign only with the OT calendar - which is a calendar which is beyond reproach in its accuracy and detail, but it becomes corrupted when reading of a world flood: the OT NY is based on the birthdate of Adam.

We find here also, this flood was reported by others in the region, affirming the report, but only as a regional flood.

Could you provide some documentation? I am curious mainly about the date of this historical record. Does it predate the OT?

The flood was mentioned in babylonian writings, I believe it was Hamurabi. Noah predated the OT emergence by 2000 years; the OT describes it retrospectively - the astonishing thing for me, and one far more interesting than the debate of the flood size - where its texts can be read differently with different conclusions.

While I understand millions see it as a global flood, and this has a major impact on history and geography, its other view can be just as soundly made. The multi references of the whole earth; all life with breath; covering of mountain tops, etc render other contradictions if read as a global flood. The global aspect also contradicts that there were other civilizations in Asia, such as China and India - it fosters a different debate again, and perhaps it is best to evidence these other nations and sectors of the world, as the deciding factor here: while we have reports of Mohenjodaro, for example, being over 5000 years old - some also date this as 2500 years old, and its datings are in dispute; also, the surrounding evidences for India and China being more than 5000 is not iron clad - there are no supporting evidences which satisfy my research here.

The Noah story is far more dependable than all the links I've seen for other pre-5000 year reportings of history: it contains dates and names which expound the origins of many nations in the list of Noah's generations:

Canaan, the Jebusites and ancient Egypt via Ham , and Put, and Canaan.; Greece [Greece] & Germany [ashkanaz]; Shem-Nahor-Terah-Abraham; Assyria, phoenecia and Babylon [11 Out of that land went forth Asshur, and builded Nineveh, and Rehoboth-ir, and Calah]; the original Philistine [14 and Pathrusim, and Casluhim--whence went forth the Philistines--and Caphtorim. {S}]; etc. I am not certain, but Cush and Hodu are also mentioned, and one of these may relate to India.

The Noah story ends with the Abraham, which serves as a background to what the OT is narrating, which I have not seen else such a level of historical writ. Here is the first introduction of the Chaldees, Abraham,Sarah and the city of Ur, now in Iraq:

28 And Haran died in the presence of his father Terah in the land of his nativity, in Ur of the Chaldees. 29 And Abram and Nahor took them wives: the name of Abram's wife was Sarai; and the name of Nahor's wife, Milcah, the daughter of Haran, the father of Milcah, and the father of Iscah.

Places and routes are also mentioned:10/19 And the border of the Canaanite was from Zidon, as thou goest toward Gerar, unto Gaza; as thou goest toward Sodom and Gomorrah and Admah and Zeboiim, unto Lasha.

The above stats are the measuring roads and vindicated, by archeologists today. There is no question that Genesis is making historical portrains here, of an ancient period which is not seen elsewhere. This makes it a document which describes ancient history, whereby the world would not know of these details without it.

Last time I checked, even a diary is acceptable evidence in a court - even in a murder trial. It is held as established unless opposing evidence is shown. The latter did not iccur, rendering it a scientifically acceptable positation. This is FACT.

There is no need for admin to get rude and use unacceptable terms, or to advise me what is science and what is not!